ArticlePediatric transplantation2026
Impact of Donor Age on Short-Term Outcomes After Pediatric Split Liver Transplantation.
Article in Pediatric transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSplit liver transplantation (SLT) expands access to grafts for pediatric recipients, but the short-term implications of donor age at the extremes of the accepted range remain uncertain.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 144 pediatric SLT recipients treated from 2015 to 2025. Recipients were grouped by donor age: 2-10 years (n = 21), 11-49 years (n = 103), and 50-63 years (n = 20). One-year patient and death-censored graft survival were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Donor age was additionally modeled continuously per 10-year increase in separate Cox models for death-censored graft loss and patient death. The functional form of donor age for graft loss was examined using restricted cubic splines, and outcomes were explored by in situ versus ex situ splitting.
resultsOne-year patient survival was 90.5%, 91.2%, and 84.4% in Groups A, B, and C, respectively (log-rank p = 0.711); corresponding death-censored graft survival was 95.2%, 94.0%, and 84.1% (p = 0.334). Per 10-year increase in donor age, the hazard ratio was 1.217 (95% CI, 0.823-1.800; p = 0.324) for graft loss and 1.099 (95% CI, 0.796-1.516; p = 0.568) for patient death. No significant departure from linearity was detected (p for nonlinearity = 0.527). In situ and ex situ splitting showed no significant differences in 1-year survival after adjustment for donor age.
conclusionsOne-year survival did not differ significantly by donor age. Carefully selected young and older donors may be considered in experienced centers, although limited sample sizes and wide confidence intervals warrant caution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.